Griffin v. Titus
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Griffin v. Titus, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free status for an appeal, finding any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The judgment affects Petitioner Rudolph W. Griffin by dismissing his action and denying permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The respondent is A. Titus, superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility.
What happened
In Griffin v. Titus, Petitioner Rudolph W. Griffin’s action against A. Titus, superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, was dismissed. The judgment states that the reasons were given in an April 18, 2025, order, which is not included here.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Griffin permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on April 23, 2025. The judgment itself does not explain the underlying basis for dismissal.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Titus · No. 1:24-cv-05687
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Rudolph W. Griffin is identified as the petitioner, and A. Titus, superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, is identified as the respondent. The judgment states that the action was dismissed for the reasons given in the court’s April 18, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the judgment does not reveal the underlying grounds for dismissal.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment cites a prior Supreme Court decision concerning good faith when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Effect
The provided judgment ends the action in the district court and denies fee-free status for an appeal. It does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not describe the claims or the April 18 order’s reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.